> Nope. A private list allows ALL subscribers to post, or only the moderator. > (All or nothing). I'd like to see an option to allow only authorized > subscribers to post, because it opens up a lot of new ways to use lists. The > thing is, if you only want your experts, board members, or advertisers, etc. > to post, you have to take unusual measures, such as managing passwords for > them, or adding all unauthorized subscribers to your kill file. Ahh okay, yes now that you mentioned it that wasn't on my list, but I have spoken with Robert about it previously. I think you and I spoke about it a few weeks back also. When I spoke with Robert about it though we spoke of this capability being really good for online "Board-Room" lists where members of a project could subscribe and watch what's going on, but only the board members would be able to post. Somehow I neglected to add that on to the list. I'll make sure it gets added on tonight though. > > The list in my example HAS to be private, because that's the only way I can > get them on the killfile at the same time the get on the user file. - But > the option should be available whether the list is public or private. I can > think of uses in either case. > > > Well that is certainly a good point, but in my suggestion I specifically > > asked for people in the kill list not to receive notification that they > were > > there. > > That's why I said "if" - in case you didn't get your notification. Actually, > I'd like to see it renamed anyway. I know it's called that because it does > "kill" messages, but the name causes people problems. Even if they don't see > it the name, I have to discuss it the killfile with these guys, and I'd > rather be calling is something else. Personally I like Kill file.. it sounds so ominous and makes me appear as if I have more power than I otherwise woudl :) > > > - Truncate digest messages. When you read individual messages in > > continuing > > > threads, you often don't realize how much quoted material there is, down > > > below - but in a digest, it's just awful reading. Plus it makes the > digest > > > several times larger than it has to be. I'd like to be able to set my > > digest > > > to truncate any message at, say the 10th line starting with a ">" > > > > > > Yes I agree, but I think this would be nearly impossible to implement. > Many > > people (such as me) add replies in the middle of other's posts. > > Maybe you mean to say you can't see yourself using it - that's not the same > as saying it's nearly impossible for technical reasons. Well no.. I think it would be nearly impossible. I'm not the world's brightest, but just how would a listserv determine what was appropriate to truncate and what woudl not be appropriate? From a programmatical point of view I can not think how I would code that... perhaps you could shed some light? > > If it's possible, I'd really love that option, because I get complaints > about trash in the digest. > But I can see where many would not want to use it, particularly if > paragraphs were running long on a particular list - for whatever reason. > > But over here, the people posting messages are not the ones reading the > digest, for the most part, and I don't think they'd mind if a few of their > comments didn't make it into the digest. Ohh you mean just truncate.. as in absoluetly no posting over a few K in size? Wow... I guess but I would never use it.. not sure that's a real good idea, but if I understand you correctly now, truncating a message beyond a particular size would be doable easily. > > As an admin, if I thought 10 lines was cutting it too tight, (I'm already > thinking that) I could increase the number, or turn off the option. I just > think it's a choice you should be able to make, to weigh readability against > the possibility that some material would be missing. > > And if auto truncation couldn't be offered, I'd at least like to be able to > edit messages that are in the digest mailbox. > > Lastly, thanks for working with them on listserver improvements. I'm sure it > helps them to have users sum up what they want - so they don't have to guess > what people want. > Well I know that Robert is probably tired of hearing from me about now.. I've been hounding him since last November for listserv upgrades. In June he agreed to "see what he could do" and I know has been working on some but they're "not far enough along to show anyone" yet. I keep pestering him every so many days (5-7) to see if ther is any progress... I'm kind of desperate for some improvments. With a lot of lists, and bigs ones at that the weak administrative control over the listserv is really hampering me. Anthony Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list.
